On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote: > It's a convenience function so it can be more easily understood what's going > on and we don't each write it a million different ways. require_ok() solves a > big chunk of the problem. > > if( something something ) { > use_ok 'Foo';
So in these cases, we're using it basically as an eval block, because a simple "use Foo" would be bad. What it sounds to me like is: "If all you're testing is that the module loads, and it must always, then simply do a use and do without the use_ok()". In this example: BEGIN { use_ok( 'App::Ack' ); use_ok( 'App::Ack::Repository' ); use_ok( 'App::Ack::Resource' ); use_ok( 'File::Next' ); } diag( "Testing App::Ack $App::Ack::VERSION, File::Next $File::Next::VERSION, Perl $], $^X" ); it sounds like we're saying that the use_ok() doesn't help at all, and I might as well write use App::Ack; use App::Ack::Repository; use App::Ack::Resource; use File::Next; diag( "Testing App::Ack $App::Ack::VERSION, File::Next $File::Next::VERSION, Perl $], $^X" ); Agreed? xoa -- Andy Lester => a...@petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance